Robert G. Yetman, Jr.

Identity Politics at its Most Dangerous

I’ve long said that the opportunity to select nominees to the Supreme Court is one of the most important facets of being President of the United States. While much about his office has grown to be somewhat symbolic, there’s nothing symbolic about the president’s ability to directly affect the way in which our beloved and supremely important Constitution is interpreted and applied when he exercises his right and responsibility to hand-pick those whose job it is to do just that.

On that note, allow me to present federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor, if approved (which is practically a guarantee), would be the first Hispanic woman to sit on the court, and the first Hispanic of either gender entirely to do so. Sotomayor can claim an admittedly admirable “up-from-one’s-bootstraps” sort of story, and is quite obviously in possession of a powerful intellect. That said, she is also the precise kind of threat those who worry about the addition of an activist liberal jurist to the Supreme Court most fear.

 Perhaps the most troublesome piece to Sotomayor’s philosophical makeup is her apparent embrace of identity politics. Identity politics is political activity that’s based in advancing the interests of a perceived minority or historically disadvantaged group; it is politics predicated on the idea that someone should earn an esteemed position of one kind or another largely, if not entirely, out of deference to their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Sotomayor famously said in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that it’s OK for judges to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” and more famously went on to say that, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hadn’t lived that life.” Now…switch “Latina” for “white male” in that statement…have the speech delivered by John Roberts…and then imagine the outcry.

Her pronouncement is not merely the voicing of some personal ideal; her beliefs in this regard are painfully evident in her behavior as a judge. In a recent case involving the city of New Haven, Connecticut, Sotomayor so stridently sided with the city in its discriminatory practices to deny promotion to white firefighters that she was actually chastised by a colleague, Judge Jose Cabanes (a Clinton appointee, of all things).

There is a lot to dislike about the nomination of Sotomayor, but the reality is that we were going to be handed a liberal activist nominee by Obama no matter what (which, by the way, is why I told you how important it was to move past your distaste for McCain and vote for him anyway…rather than sitting out the election). What is especially disconcerting about this nominee is that she appears to be a not-so-veiled racist and sexist who is only too happy to apply overt identity-based preferences to her decision-making process in her capacity as a jurist.

And, sadly, the worst of an Obama presidency continues to come to pass…and we've only just begun. 

Robert G. Yetman, Jr.  Editor-At-Large www.ChristianMoney.com

Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/robertyetman

Miss California and the Controversy Over Nothing

The latest on Miss California and self-proclaimed opponent of gay marriage, Carrie Prejean, is that she’s now embroiled in another controversy, one that many have said exposes her as a hypocrite.  It turns out that Miss Prejean, who angered militant homosexuals, in particular, as well as leftist thugs, in general, with her pronouncement on the Miss USA telecast that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, was in a few salacious pics when she was 17 and trying to make a few bucks as a lingerie model.  There is, admittedly, some disagreement over just when the photos were taken, as some of them appear to have been taken more recently than when she was 17, but the reality is that this is a non-issue, and supporters of Prejean, as well as of traditional marriage, should back off not one step.

The idea that Prejean’s position on gay marriage now loses its credibility because she allowed some suggestive photos of herself to be taken at some point in her life is silly.  Comparing the full, even aggressive, acceptance of men laying with men to an attractive woman having a few semi-nude photos taken of herself (and by herself) is untenable.  I’ve seen a few of what I understand to be the photos in question, and while I’d be less than thrilled with my daughter if she had been the subject, I cannot even begin to compare my reaction to the one I would feel if my son said he wanted to marry another man.  From what I’ve seen, nothing about the supposedly controversial Prejean pics constitutes pornography, so while reaction is appropriate, overreaction is not.  Was it a good idea for her to take them?  No.  Is it anywhere near as bad as embracing marriage between sodomites?  You’ve got to be kidding me.

This is what we have to fight: the efforts of the radical left to bludgeon us with our embarrassing, but still tame, failings in an effort to silence us when we try to speak out against that which is truly vile.  I think back to what Bill Bennett said when his gambling addiction was merrily used by leftist scum to shut him up when he was known well as a conservative moralizer.  He said it best: “If you’ve got to be perfect to talk about right and wrong, nobody gets to talk.”  Carrie Prejean is certainly not perfect, but has a lot of good things to say; I hope she keeps talking. 

Robert G. Yetman, Jr.  Editor-At–Large www.ChristianMoney.com

 

      

 

Tags: miss+california,+donald+trump,+carrie+prejean